SMDMadCow, on 10 June 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:
Higher elo players joining with 3 low elo players to get easy games to stat pad and the like. Out of game, just look at the WoT forums for a perfect example of that (with win%, not elo).
Elo works on a team average. If 4 people do what you describe then they would be balanced out on the opposing team with equal skill. I'd rather have 4 above average players any day over 3 new/bad players and a pro.
Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:
Deity: Read the questions posed in Post #488- that's your biggest unbiased , un"scurrd" opposition to this failboat of an idea.
Here goes:
Quote
-Not ONE player has explained to me how public Elos are going to help PGI balance the game, when they can ALREADY see them. I'm waiting for an answer.
Public Elo ratings won't help PGI balance the game. Nothing short of a staff overhaul will help PGI balance the game though. What public Elo ratings will do is to help the community tell PGI how to balance the game by raising the level of discourse.
PGI is bad when it comes to balance. They don't have the ability to do it. This is evident by looking at the state of the game from patch to patch.
Quote
-Not ONE player has explained to me how public Elos would account for the people who abuse the broken systems (poptarts and PPC boats). How would those who are not ACTUALLY good, get separated from those who are ACTUALLY good? (for purposes of "more say.") No one has explained that one to me. (The solution we'd have to use, we've been using.. without Elo.)
It doesn't matter if the people with high Elos are actually good. "Actually good" is in fact totally worthless to this discussion because of how arbitrary of a definition is. What constitutes being "actually good?" Is it positioning? Aim? Total damage output? Kills? Base caps? Ability to spread damage? Ability to create a good 'mech build? Ability to crunch numbers and evaluate which weapons are better than the others? All of the above equally? All of the above but not equally? This is the beauty of the Elo system working only on wins and losses. Elo is telling you who wins more and dodges the entire rat's nest of trying to define skill.
The people who are winning more have a reason that they are winning more, and that reason is that they have a deeper understanding of the game than someone who wins less. If they are only winning because they are abusing one temporary metagame imbalance like poptart sniping then as this patch showed they won't maintain their rating for long. I don't think it's realistic to act as if some horrible player who is only good because of imbalances will be able to run away with the conversation and bend the metagame to his will. Everyone knew poptart sniping was B.S., yet you had people defending it to the death. That didn't stop the poptart nerf from coming though, people complained right over the poptart defense. But it's sad that massive complaints on the forums are the metric that PGI uses to balance.
My question to you is why you think someone being a jerk on the forums by dismissing valid points coming from lower elo players is an actual problem? Trolls will be trolls and the people who want to have an actual conversation will just ignore them and plow on, just like every other day on the internet.
Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:
...they can still maintain an inflated ELO for the purpose of coming to the forums or chat rooms and lording their "knowledge" of the game over others.
But they don't exist in a vacuum. If a team is being loud and boisterous on the forums, other teams challenge them to back up their words with action. They might be able to get some people to believe what they say based on their numbers alone but when they fail in every formal competition event then the gig will be up. And honestly if people want to waste that much time executing a plot to raise their Elo ratings so that they have slightly more credibility to say outlandish things on the forums...who cares? They can do this now by screenshotting inflated stats (or just fake a screenshot of good stats).
Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:
You will also see teams that use tactics like having one sacrificial group that consistently pulls heavy groups away from their base to fight what will be a suicidal action allowing their other mechs to cap and other generally unfun tactics. Their just isn't enough to be gained from public ELO or K/D to justify doing it. Anyone with online game experience and an ounce of brains can figure out about where they are in the general level of competition, and where other players are. This isn't that large a game population, and probably never will be.
You can't blame players for unfun tactics that are effective. The blame for that lies 100% on the developers for making a game in which unfun tactics are more effective than fun ones. Competitive players
play to win, and that's a good thing.
This last bit isn't directed to anyone in particular, but please try to keep the conversation civil. If your goal is to persuade other people that your viewpoint is correct, then insulting them is pretty much the worst thing you can do for your cause. People are crazy and would sometimes rather continue being wrong just to spite someone they don't like than admit that that person has a valid point.
7
I would imagine somewhere near the top, we reside.
